Views in brief

Refusing to be indifferent to Obama

LANCE SELFA'S joining with Glen Ford's anti-Obama screeds against [Progressives for Obama] is rather odd ("Chasing the Obama mirage").

Lance correctly notes that we defined Obama as speaking from the "center" from day one, and have repeatedly pointed out that he's not a "consistent progressive" by any means, even if he does take a progressive stand on some issues--fewer than some might think.

The reason it's odd is that readers of our Web site will find some of the better critiques of Obama from left and progressive perspectives around, a far cry better than the polemics of Ford--a great promoter of the progressive wonders of Howard Dean in 2004--who has now managed to turn on a dime into ultraleft Black nationalist.

One point of our critiques, however, is that we mainly pick those left and progressive issues that will add to Obama's vote numbers, rather than subtract from them. We are interested in a left-center coalition candidate that can win, after all, rather than one who can simply go out in a blaze of glory around a left-progressive platform that, whatever its intrinsic value, is still incapable on uniting a majority of voters, including many new voters, this year.

Socialist Worker seems to have some sense of the unique and historical referendum that this election is going to be. We're well aware that the Obama team represents a faction of imperialism, but we refuse to be indifferent; and for a range of reasons, see the importance of a defeat of McCain by him and the movement behind him.

SW would do well to not try to be so coy and add its voice to this historic decision as well. Our aim, after all, is to be working with these new young forces to press our progressive demands on an Obama White House in 2009.

We're in the thick of this, laying the groundwork for new organization and new allies in a direct and fruitful way. Others on the far left, including Ford, have removed themselves from these options, but I expected something a little more astute from your corner. Perhaps I was wrong to do so.
Carl Davidson, Aliquippa, Pa.

History according to Bush

Thanks to Socialist Worker for Lee Sustar's outstanding article on the Russian invasion of Georgia ("How imperial rivalries stoked war in Georgia"). The history and analysis was very helpful.

The Bush administration has its own version of history. I saw Condoleezza Rice on television say, in a lecturing voice directed at Russian leaders, "This is not 1968...Russia cannot just invade countries like they did in Czechoslovakia."

I was stunned at this amazing comment, not only because the U.S. is involved in illegal invasions of two countries right now. In addition, lest the former professor Rice forget, in 1968 the U.S. was also involved in an illegal invasion in Vietnam.

In fact, as Socialist Worker's series on the events of 1968 has shown, the twin evils of U.S. imperialism and Russian imperialism were exposed dramatically by these twin invasions. Millions of people were radicalized by this awareness and were inspired to fight for a better world.

That they weren't successful in their era should only strengthen our resolve in this one, because the rulers of the world clearly still behave in the same old way.

We shouldn't expect them to be transformed by goodwill, or even a change of presidents. Only what the people themselves do can ultimately bring an end to the madness of imperialism.
Bill Neal, Los Angeles

Nothing golden about the Olympics

I hate the Olympics. I'm sick of the testosterone-contorted faces of Michael Phelps and his teammates, of the close-ups of the athletic gear emblazoned with the American flag and corporate logos.

One photo spoke volumes about what the Olympics are really about: In the stands sitting one behind the other watching the American swim team were Bill Gates (the über-capitalist pig), George Bush (super-patriot moron) and Henry Kissinger (the killer).

Capitalism, patriotism and violence are the gold, silver and bronze of the Olympic Games.
Helen Redmond, Chicago

Forced to depend on bad food

I HAVE read many articles in your publication recently about the huge increases in the price of many kinds of food both in the United States and throughout the world.

This is significant, but what also bothers me is the fact that, within the United States, the federal government issues food to low-income people of such poor quality that people depending on it often get diabetes or heart disease. So the result of depending on this food often means an early death.

A friend of mine who is also low-income and lives in the United States as I do argues that many low-income people in this nation must take government-issued food to avoid starvation. She adds that, lately, the amount of food she gets is steadily going down.

My health is much more fragile than my friend's. I do not want to end up in a hospital or an early grave because of depending on federal government-issued food.
Freeman Cocroft, San Diego